Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.96 AVERAGE
3.96 AVERAGE
adventurous
funny
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
lighthearted
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I picked this up understanding that it was the literary equivalent of a beloved blockbuster, not necessarily saying much but a well-told, well-crafted, and entertaining story. I was half-right.
Which half? Well, both and neither. I don't think anyone could call this well-crafted, as it's certainly not trying to ne formally innovative or experimental but nevertheless breaks rules even most modern hacks know to follow. There's a lot of telling-not-showing, the structure isn't really there, it's difficutl at any point in time to understand what the stakes of a given mission are, the characters don't really have arcs, and there's a lot of superfluous prose and repeated information. In Dumas' defense, a lot of the rules of writing probably hadn't been formally codified at the time of writing, and the serial publishing format certainly didn't lend itself to well-structured, concise novels. But just flaws having explanations doesn't erase them.
And even looking solely at the adventures themselves, this isn't as memorable as you'd think. Before reading this, my friend and I spoke about how, despite its reputation, neither of us could name a single moment in the story that persisted in the cultural consciousness. Now I can see why! There are some fun duels, but none feature noteworthy opponents, settings, reversals, feats of acrobatics, etc. If Dumas isn't interesting in dwelling on the details of combat, that's perfectly understandable, but they rarely have especially high stakes, nor are they in service of especially interesting goals. The biggest quest the boys undertake is to prevent the queen's affair getting exposed. Ok? And?
That said, I'm not going to go against the grain and say this is anything but very entertaining, primarily due to Dumas' mastery of mood. Even as the events aren't interesting, the sense of adventure is infectious, thanks expecially to the humor. If I were to submit one moment of "swashbuckling" to cultural memory - and I mean strictly a moment of masculine heroics, as there's another more noteworthy portion I'll get to later - it would be D'Artagnan encountering all three musketeers soon after arriving in Paris, pissing each of them off, and challenging them in turn to duels. But that isn't even as funny Athos' gambling spree, the cover story for Aramis' affairs, the way all these fools are horrible with their money, everything Porthos does...
What's most interesting about these jokes is that Dumas seems to be ahead of his own game. The comedy is mined from how irresponsible, pompous, and selfish these icons of "chivalry" are... and yet this story is considered foundational to the swashbuckling genre. It's all loving, of course, but I'd be very curious to see what a version of this looks like that features the high adventure without constantly making fun of its characters. Especially because many of the characters don't have much going for them apart from their gags - all the lackeys exist exclusively as joke characters, Porthos contributes nothing apart from his comic relief, and even Aramis doesn't do much.
But it's through this humor that Dumas proves my first expectation half-wrong. While I wouldn't say he has grand thematic ambitions here, this is fascinating as a window into the values of the time. Masculinity and honor means not backing down from your word, except when it comes to marriage, where literally nobody cares, or paying your landlord rent. Politics is a team sport, where wars are fought in service of affairs and petty grudges. Loyalty to an admitted buffoon is beyond question since he's the king, and Cardinal Richeliu is feared not because he's necessarily an enemy of the people - Buckingham is surely worse for the world and especially the people of France - but because he threatens the king's power, and because he is a powerful schemer who does not forget an enemy. then again, he is still brave and a man of his word, and D'Artagnan happily counter-schemes and holds grudges, so... what makes him evil? That he is powerful, competent, and not of royal blood? I do wish he were a more fully-formed villain, not that the question needs a clear answer, but it would do better with at least a clear LACK of an answer.
But politics aside, what is really key here is masculinity. The aforementioned Buckingham is a paragon, an ally despite being from an opposite nation. Yet, he's a notoriously corrupt philanderer who plunges his kingdom into needless war. Why do we adore him?
What about D'Artagnan: brave, hot-headed, and honest, but wily when he needs to be. He's full of virtues, but has just enough wrinkles and specificity to avoid being a Gary Stu. His honor is unquestioned... but is it unquestionabel?
But maybe more interesting is Athos, the only one of the titular three who is a fully formed character. He's stoic and heroic, both generous and irresponsible as a sign of his lack of care for money. Tough and crafty and aloof, but with a dark past that eventually defines him.
The real common thread between these heroes is their misogyny - in its many forms. Buckingham is a fuckboy simp, begging for attention from the queen and starting a war over it, but also mistreats all of the women he has bedded. D'Artagnan meets him by starting a fight with him over a woman he's literally just met but decides he's in love with. then he manipulates the servant of one woman, desperately in love with him, to help him sleep with a woman who hates him, first thinking he's someone else, then again because she thinks she's manipulating him, then he completely abandons the servant. Athos is suspicious of all women after murdering his ex-wife upon learning she lied to him about her past. Dumas problematizes all of these to varying degrees, but it doesn't change that these are our heroes...
...whereas our villain - our REAL villain, not the cardinal - is the most conniving and untrustworthy lying bitch you've ever met. Milady is a character so misogynistic she almost circles around to being feminist. While for the first half of the novel she's described as an evil mastermind without actually doing much in the narrative, the sequence that follows her imprisonment is easily the novel's best. THIS iw what people should remember - such a pure uncut piece of manipulating, fanning all the fears any man might have of how a woman in his life could be lying to him. I don't think I've ever read a character whose inner thoughts are implied to be so deliberately evil.
How much of this misogyny are Dumas' own views? to the degree they are, how much can be chalked up to the time period? I don't find either of these questions very interesting. I prefer a reading I'm myself labelling as revisionist: that we are meant to be repulsed, especially in the vicious and harrowing moment where fate catches up to her.
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
funny
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Great intrigue and fun, with great storytelling from beginning to end. The misogyny is a little extreme in the last third of the book as the focus zones in on our stereotypical femme fatal antagonist.
I especially dislike that she got such a terrifying and violent death while our male protagonists escape justice. It so exemplifies the effects of patriarchy that she suffers while they escape that I end up feeling very sympathetic to her despite the narrative intent
adventurous
emotional
funny
medium-paced
Not interesting. Were these just self centered frat boys from another time?
DNF as it was a free book on my iPhone at the time (which then crashed without warning and I never went back to re-download). Also found the story a tad long in the tooth for my brain to digest.